arXiv:2602.19141v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: "AI psychosis" or "delusional spiraling" is an emerging phenomenon where AI chatbot users find themselves dangerously confident in outlandish beliefs after extended chatbot conversations. This phenomenon is typically attributed to AI chatbots' well-documented bias towards validating users' claims, a property often called "sycophancy." In this paper, we probe the causal link between AI sycophancy and AI-induced psychosis through modeling and simulation. We propose a simple Bayesian model of a user conversing with a chatbot, and formalize notions of sycophancy and delusional spiraling in that model. We then show that in this model, even an idealized Bayes-rational user is vulnerable to delusional spiraling, and that sycophancy plays a causal role. Furthermore, this effect persists in the face of two candidate mitigations: preventing chatbots from hallucinating false claims, and informing users of the possibility of model sycophancy. We conclude by discussing the implications of these results for model developers and policymakers concerned with mitigating the problem of delusional spiraling.

arXiv:2602.19458v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent decision pipelines can outperform single agent workflows when complementarity holds, i.e., different agents bring unique information to the table to inform a final decision. We propose ComplLLM, a post-training framework based on decision theory that fine-tunes a decision-assistant LLM using complementary information as reward to output signals that complement existing agent decisions. We validate ComplLLM on synthetic and real-world tasks involving domain experts, demonstrating how the approach recovers known complementary information and produces plausible explanations of complementary signals to support downstream decision-makers.

arXiv:2602.20104v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In human-AI decision making, designing AI that complements human expertise has been a natural strategy to enhance human-AI collaboration, yet it often comes at the cost of decreased AI performance in areas of human strengths. This can inadvertently erode human trust and cause them to ignore AI advice precisely when it is most needed. Conversely, an aligned AI fosters trust yet risks reinforcing suboptimal human behavior and lowering human-AI team performance. In this paper, we start by identifying this fundamental tension between performance-boosting (i.e., complementarity) and trust-building (i.e., alignment) as an inherent limitation of the traditional approach for training a single AI model to assist human decision making. To overcome this, we introduce a novel human-centered adaptive AI ensemble that strategically toggles between two specialist AI models - the aligned model and the complementary model - based on contextual cues, using an elegantly simple yet provably near-optimal Rational Routing Shortcut mechanism. Comprehensive theoretical analyses elucidate why the adaptive AI ensemble is effective and when it yields maximum benefits. Moreover, experiments on both simulated and real-world data show that when humans are assisted by the adaptive AI ensemble in decision making, they can achieve significantly higher performance than when they are assisted by single AI models that are trained to either optimize for their independent performance or even the human-AI team performance.

arXiv:2602.18443v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Psychosocial online counselling frequently encounters generic subject lines that impede efficient case prioritisation. This study evaluates eleven large language models generating six-word subject lines for German counselling emails through hierarchical assessment - first categorising outputs, then ranking within categories to enable manageable evaluation. Nine assessors (counselling professionals and AI systems) enable analysis via Krippendorff's $\alpha$, Spearman's $\rho$, Pearson's $r$ and Kendall's $\tau$. Results reveal performance trade-offs between proprietary services and privacy-preserving open-source alternatives, with German fine-tuning consistently improving performance. The study addresses critical ethical considerations for mental health AI deployment including privacy, bias and accountability.

arXiv:2602.18456v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Contemporary benchmarks for agentic artificial intelligence (AI) frequently evaluate safety through isolated task-level accuracy thresholds, implicitly treating autonomous systems as single points of failure. This single-channel paradigm diverges from established principles in safety-critical engineering, where risk mitigation is achieved through redundancy, diversity of error modes, and joint system reliability. This paper argues that evaluating AI agents in isolation systematically mischaracterizes their operational safety when deployed within human-in-the-loop environments. Using a recent laboratory safety benchmark as a case study demonstrates that even imperfect AI systems can nonetheless provide substantial safety utility by functioning as redundant audit layers against well-documented sources of human failure, including vigilance decrement, inattentional blindness, and normalization of deviance. This perspective reframes agentic safety evaluation around the reliability of the human-AI dyad rather than absolute agent accuracy, with a particular emphasis on uncorrelated error modes as the primary determinant of risk reduction. Such a shift aligns AI benchmarking with established practices in other safety-critical domains and offers a path toward more ecologically valid safety assessments.

arXiv:2602.18460v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Across healthcare, agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly promoted as capable of autonomous action, yet in practice they currently operate under near-total human oversight due to safety, regulatory, and liability constraints that make autonomous clinical reasoning infeasible in high-stakes environments. While market enthusiasm suggests a revolution in healthcare agents, the conceptual assumptions and accountability structures shaping these systems remain underexamined. We present a qualitative study based on interviews with 20 stakeholders, including developers, implementers, and end users. Our analysis identifies three mutually reinforcing tensions: conceptual fragmentation regarding the definition of `agentic'; an autonomy contradiction where commercial promises exceed operational reality; and an evaluation blind spot that prioritizes technical benchmarks over sociotechnical safety. We argue that agentic {AI} functions as a site of contested meaning-making where technical aspirations, commercial incentives, and clinical constraints intersect, carrying material consequences for patient safety and the distribution of blame.

arXiv:2602.18483v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recently, red teaming, with roots in security, has become a key evaluative approach to ensure the safety and reliability of Generative Artificial Intelligence. However, most existing work emphasizes technical benchmarks and attack success rates, leaving the socio-technical practices of how red teaming datasets are defined, created, and evaluated under-examined. Drawing on 22 interviews with practitioners who design and evaluate red teaming datasets, we examine the data practices and standards that underpin this work. Because adversarial datasets determine the scope and accuracy of model evaluations, they are critical artifacts for assessing potential harms from large language models. Our contributions are first, empirical evidence of practitioners conceptualizing red teaming and developing and evaluating red teaming datasets. Second, we reflect on how practitioners' conceptualization of risk leads to overlooking the context, interaction type, and user specificity. We conclude with three opportunities for HCI researchers to expand the conceptualization and data practices for red-teaming.

arXiv:2602.18623v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Accessibility forums and, more recently, generative AI tools have become vital resources for blind users seeking solutions to computer-interaction issues and learning about new assistive technologies, screen reader features, tutorials, and software updates. Understanding user experiences with these resources is essential for identifying and addressing persistent support gaps. Towards this, we interviewed 14 blind users who regularly engage with forums and GenAI tools. Findings revealed that forums often overwhelm users with multiple overlapping topics, redundant or irrelevant content, and fragmented responses that must be mentally pieced together, increasing cognitive load. GenAI tools, while offering more direct assistance, introduce new barriers by producing unreliable answers, including overly verbose or fragmented guidance, fabricated information, and contradictory suggestions that fail to follow prompts, thereby heightening verification demands. Based on these insights, we outlined design opportunities to improve the reliability of assistive resources, aiming to provide blind users with more trustworthy and cognitively-manageable support.

arXiv:2602.18630v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI tools like ChatGPT and Be-My-AI are increasingly being used by blind individuals. Although prior work has explored their use in some Do-It-Yourself (DIY) tasks by blind individuals, little is known about how they use these tools and the available product-manual resources to assemble, operate, and troubleshoot physical or tangible products - tasks requiring spatial reasoning, structural understanding, and precise execution. We address this knowledge gap via an interview study and a usability study with blind participants, investigating how they leverage AI tools and product manuals for DIY tasks with physical products. Findings show that manuals are essential resources, but product-manual instructions are often inadequate for blind users. AI tools presently do not adequately address this insufficiency; in fact, we observed that they often exacerbate this issue with incomplete, incoherent, or misleading guidance. Lastly, we suggest improvements to AI tools for generating tailored instructions for blind users' DIY tasks involving tangible products.

arXiv:2602.18807v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We evaluate GPTutor, an LLM-powered tutoring system for an undergraduate discrete mathematics course. It integrates two LLM-supported tools: a structured proof-review tool that provides embedded feedback on students' written proof attempts, and a chatbot for math questions. In a staggered-access study with 148 students, earlier access was associated with higher homework performance during the interval when only the experimental group could use the system, while we did not observe this performance increase transfer to exam scores. Usage logs show that students with lower self-efficacy and prior exam performance used both components more frequently. Session-level behavioral labels, produced by human coding and scaled using an automated classifier, characterize how students engaged with the chatbot (e.g., answer-seeking or help-seeking). In models controlling for prior performance and self-efficacy, higher chatbot usage and answer-seeking behavior were negatively associated with subsequent midterm performance, whereas proof-review usage showed no detectable independent association. Together, the findings suggest that chatbot-based support alone may not reliably support transfer to independent assessment of math proof-learning outcomes, whereas work-anchored, structured feedback appears less associated with reduced learning.

arXiv:2602.18832v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Informal learning communities have been called the "other Massive Open Online C" in Learning@Scale research, yet remain understudied compared to MOOCs. We present the first empirical study of a large-scale informal learning community composed entirely of AI agents. Moltbook, a social network exclusively for AI agents powered by autonomous agent frameworks such as OpenClaw, grew to over 2.8 million registered agents in three weeks. Analyzing 231,080 non-spam posts across three phases of community evolution, we find three key patterns. First, participation inequality is extreme from the start (comment Gini = 0.889), exceeding human community benchmarks. Second, AI agents exhibit a "broadcasting inversion": statement-to-question ratios of 8.9:1 to 9.7:1 contrast sharply with the question-driven dynamics of human learning communities, and comment-level analysis of 1.55 million comments reveals a "parallel monologue" pattern where 93% of comments are independent responses rather than threaded dialogue. Third, we document a characteristic engagement lifecycle: explosive initial growth (184K posts from 32K authors in 11 days), a spam crisis (57,093 posts deleted by the platform), and engagement decline (mean comments: 31.7 -> 8.3 -> 1.7) that had not reversed by the end of our observation window despite effective spam removal. Sentiment analysis reveals a selection effect: comment tone becomes more positive as engagement declines, suggesting that casual participants disengage first while committed contributors remain. These findings have direct implications for hybrid human-AI learning platforms.

arXiv:2602.18891v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Advances in large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming scientific work, yet empirical evidence on how these systems reshape research activities remains limited. We report a mixed-methods pilot evaluation of an AI-orchestrated research workflow in which a human researcher coordinated multiple LLM-based agents to perform data extraction, corpus construction, artifact generation, and artifact evaluation. Using the generation and assessment of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) as a testbed, we collected 1,071 SAT Math MCQs and employed LLM agents to extract questions from PDFs, retrieve and convert open textbooks into structured representations, align each MCQ with relevant textbook content, generate new MCQs under specified difficulty and cognitive levels, and evaluate both original and generated MCQs using a 24-criterion quality framework. Across all evaluations, average MCQ quality was high. However, criterion-level analysis and equivalence testing show that generated MCQs are not fully comparable to expert-vetted baseline questions. Strict similarity (24/24 criteria equivalent) was never achieved. Persistent gaps concentrated in skill\ depth, cognitive engagement, difficulty calibration, and metadata alignment, while surface-level qualities, such as {grammar fluency}, {clarity options}, {no duplicates}, were consistently strong. Beyond MCQ outcomes, the study documents a labor shift. The researcher's work moved from ``authoring items'' toward {specification, orchestration, verification}, and {governance}. Formalizing constraints, designing rubrics, building validation loops, recovering from tool failures, and auditing provenance constituted the primary activities. We discuss implications for the future of scientific work, including emerging ``AI research operations'' skills required for AI-empowered research pipelines.

arXiv:2602.18962v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The double empathy problem frames communication difficulties between neurodivergent and neurotypical individuals as arising from mutual misunderstanding, yet most interventions focus on autistic individuals. We present NeuroWise, a multi-agent LLM-based coaching system that supports neurotypical users through stress visualization, interpretation of internal experiences, and contextual guidance. In a between-subjects study (N=30), NeuroWise was rated as helpful by all participants and showed a significant condition-time effect on deficit-based attributions (p=0.02): NeuroWise users reduced deficit framing, while baseline users shifted toward blaming autistic "deficits" after difficult interactions. NeuroWise users also completed conversations more efficiently (37% fewer turns, p=0.03). These findings suggest that AI-based interpretation can support attributional change by helping users recognize communication challenges as mutual.

arXiv:2602.19304v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Successful cooperation among decentralized agents requires each agent to quickly adapt its plan to the behavior of other agents. In scenarios where agents cannot confidently predict one another's intentions and plans, language communication can be crucial for ensuring safety. In this work, we focus on path-level cooperation in which agents must adapt their paths to one another in order to avoid collisions or perform physical collaboration such as joint carrying. In particular, we propose a safe and interpretable multimodal path planning method, CaPE (Code as Path Editor), which generates and updates path plans for an agent based on the environment and language communication from other agents. CaPE leverages a vision-language model (VLM) to synthesize a path editing program verified by a model-based planner, grounding communication to path plan updates in a safe and interpretable way. We evaluate our approach in diverse simulated and real-world scenarios, including multi-robot and human-robot cooperation in autonomous driving, household, and joint carrying tasks. Experimental results demonstrate that CaPE can be integrated into different robotic systems as a plug-and-play module, greatly enhancing a robot's ability to align its plan to language communication from other robots or humans. We also show that the combination of the VLM-based path editing program synthesis and model-based planning safety enables robots to achieve open-ended cooperation while maintaining safety and interpretability.

arXiv:2602.19463v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As a primary channel for sustaining modern intimate relationships, instant messaging facilitates frequent connection across distances. However, today's tools often dilute care; they favor single tap reactions and vague emojis that do not support two way action responses, do not preserve the feeling that the exchange keeps going without breaking, and are weakly tied to who we are and what we share. To address this challenge, we present PuppetChat, a dyadic messaging prototype that restores this expressive depth through embodied interaction. PuppetChat uses a reciprocity aware recommender to encourage responsive actions and generates personalized micronarratives from user stories to ground interactions in personal history. Our 10-day field study with 11 dyads of close partners or friends revealed that this approach enhanced social presence, supported more expressive self disclosure, and sustained continuity and shared memories.

arXiv:2602.19491v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Trust remains a critical barrier to the effective integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into human-centric domains. Disembodied agents, such as voice assistants, often fail to establish trust due to their inability to convey non-verbal social cues. This paper introduces the architecture of Botson: an anthropomorphic social robot powered by a large language model (LLM). Botson was created as a low-cost and accessible platform for social robotics research.

arXiv:2602.19623v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While advancements in Text-to-Video (T2V) generative AI offer a promising path toward democratizing content creation, current models are often optimized for visual fidelity rather than instructional efficacy. This study introduces PedaCo-Gen, a pedagogically-informed human-AI collaborative video generating system for authoring instructional videos based on Mayer's Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML). Moving away from traditional "one-shot" generation, PedaCo-Gen introduces an Intermediate Representation (IR) phase, enabling educators to interactively review and refine video blueprints-comprising scripts and visual descriptions-with an AI reviewer. Our study with 23 education experts demonstrates that PedaCo-Gen significantly enhances video quality across various topics and CTML principles compared to baselines. Participants perceived the AI-driven guidance not merely as a set of instructions but as a metacognitive scaffold that augmented their instructional design expertise, reporting high production efficiency (M=4.26) and guide validity (M=4.04). These findings highlight the importance of reclaiming pedagogical agency through principled co-creation, providing a foundation for future AI authoring tools that harmonize generative power with human professional expertise.

arXiv:2602.19629v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence systems increasingly participate in research, law, education, media, and governance. Their fluent and adaptive outputs create an experience of collaboration. However, these systems do not bear responsibility, incur liability, or share stakes in downstream consequences. This structural asymmetry has already produced sanctions, professional errors, and governance failures in high-stakes contexts We argue that stable human-AI coexistence is an institutional achievement that depends on governance infrastructure capable of distributing residual risk. Drawing on institutional analysis and evolutionary cooperation theory, we introduce a formal inequality that specifies when reliance on AI yields positive expected cooperative value. The model makes explicit how governance conditions, system policy, and accountability regimes jointly determine whether cooperation is rational or structurally defective. From this formalization we derive a cooperation ecology framework with six design principles: reciprocity contracts, visible trust infrastructure, conditional cooperation modes, defection-mitigation mechanisms, narrative literacy against authority theatre, and an Earth-first sustainability constraint. We operationalize the framework through three policy artefacts: a Human-AI Cooperation Charter, a Defection Risk Register, and a Cooperation Readiness Audit. Together, these elements shift the unit of analysis from the user-AI dyad to the institutional environment that shapes incentives, signals, accountability, and repair. The paper provides a theoretical foundation and practical toolkit for designing human-AI systems that can sustain accountable, trustworthy cooperation over time.

arXiv:2602.19948v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized for mental health support; however, current safety benchmarks often fail to detect the complex, longitudinal risks inherent in therapeutic dialogue. We introduce an evaluation framework that pairs AI psychotherapists with simulated patient agents equipped with dynamic cognitive-affective models and assesses therapy session simulations against a comprehensive quality of care and risk ontology. We apply this framework to a high-impact test case, Alcohol Use Disorder, evaluating six AI agents (including ChatGPT, Gemini, and Character.AI) against a clinically-validated cohort of 15 patient personas representing diverse clinical phenotypes. Our large-scale simulation (N=369 sessions) reveals critical safety gaps in the use of AI for mental health support. We identify specific iatrogenic risks, including the validation of patient delusions ("AI Psychosis") and failure to de-escalate suicide risk. Finally, we validate an interactive data visualization dashboard with diverse stakeholders, including AI engineers and red teamers, mental health professionals, and policy experts (N=9), demonstrating that this framework effectively enables stakeholders to audit the "black box" of AI psychotherapy. These findings underscore the critical safety risks of AI-provided mental health support and the necessity of simulation-based clinical red teaming before deployment.

arXiv:2602.07754v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: This study investigates students' perceptions of Artificial Intelligence (AI) grading systems in an undergraduate computer science course (n = 27), focusing on a block-based programming final project. Guided by the ethical principles framework articulated by Jobin (2019), our study examines fairness, trust, consistency, and transparency in AI grading by comparing AI-generated feedback with original human-graded feedback. Findings reveal concerns about AI's lack of contextual understanding and personalization. We recommend that equitable and trustworthy AI systems reflect human judgment, flexibility, and empathy, serving as supplementary tools under human oversight. This work contributes to ethics-centered assessment practices by amplifying student voices and offering design principles for humanizing AI in designed learning environments.